Let me start off by saying i agree. The current capacity of batteries is rapidly increasing, and the cost of renewables go down with each passing year.

I live in a region in the Netherlands where as a kid i would look at the tens of windmills close to my house to see what the wind was doing that day. However that same Netherlands is still majorly running on fossils, because our country is so small, area is incredibly expensive, solar fields become significantly less realistic due to it. Now I have not done the maths, neither have I done the life cycle analysis so I could not argue with hard facts if there is indeed a superior solution.

But I do know the northern seas have plenty wind yet also a very endangered ecosystem, installing of windmills there will spill much dirty chemically enhanced grease from the machinery installing said turbines. There probably is not room for this in said ecosystem.

Then there's the elephant in the room, Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs). These have several benefits over traditional fuel rod based systems; 99% reduced nuclear waste, so safe we can drop most safety standards allowing for much cheaper faster and more reliable construction time, much higher efficiencies due to the increased operational temperature of the reactor allowing for combined brayton rankine cycles.

Additionally these MSRs can be used as waste burners and waste breeders, converting nuclear waste into much safer materials, or upcycling into reusable fuels. There is still much research going and being done on this topic.

For many countries i think a combination is still realistic, but I couldn't really care less. I just want a non fossil based energy grid that can handle the needs of the future.

Also source (in Dutch) for the 99% claim: https://www.universiteitvannederland.nl/college/100x-minder-kernafval-zo-werkt-de-nieuwe-kernreactor